Vijay Pal Sharma and Others vs Delhi Administration and Others

This Judgment has been overruled by : Delhi Development Horticulture Employees'' Union Vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, AIR 1992 SC 789 : (1992) 1 JT 394 : (1992) LabIC 847 : (1992) 2 LLJ 452 : (1992) 1 SCALE 294 : (1992) 4 SCC 99 : (1992) 1 SCR 565 : (1992) 1 SLJ 201 : (1992) 1 UJ 676

Having considered the facts we are of the opinion that this matter is covered by a decision of this court entitled Niadar and Another v. Delhi Administration and Another'' which was decided on 29/09/1988. In terms thereof thus, we direct the Delhi Administration to absorb the petitioners in accordance with the prepared scheme for absorbing casual labourers, which scheme has been made effective from October I, 1988. In terms of the scheme, any casual labourer who has worked for one year or more in the Horticulture Department shall be regularised within a period of six months from today if such casual labourer is other- wise fit to be regularised under the scheme as regular employee. On that footing each casual labourer working in the department shall get salary or wages at the rate equivalent to the minimum salary paid to a regular employee in comparable post in the Horticulture Department.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the expression ''salary or wages'' used in Niadar case and which has been used instantly also has given rise to a doubt in the department as to whether on regularisation minimum wage is to be paid or minimum salary to the regular employee, and on that about Rs. 750.00 per month instead of Rs 1100 per month has been paid to some of the employees. Learned counsel for the Delhi Administration disputes this fact and says that it was always meant and always shall mean that minimum salary plus allowances which comes to about Rs. 1,100.00 has been paid to such employees and is otherwise payable. This clarifies the doubt expressed. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in these terms. No costs.

[ANNEXURE ORDERS] ANNEXURE ORDER 1 (FROM UNPUBLISHED) APPEAL NO. : 562 of 1990 APPEAL TYPE : Review Petition JUDGE NAME : B.C.RAY, K.N.SAIKIAAND, M.M.PUNCHHI APPELLANTS :DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS : VIJAY PAL SHARMA Arising out of Writ Petition No. 818 of 1989 in W.P. No. 818 of 1989 decided on 31/10/1990 ORDER We have carefully gone through the Review Petition and the con- nected papers. We do not find any merit in the Review Petition which is accordingly dismissed. [ANNEXURE ORDERS] ANNEXURE ORDER 2 (FROM UNPUBLISHED) DATE OF JUDGEMENT : August 8, 1991 APPEAL NO. : 262 of 1990 APPEAL TYPE : Contempt Petition JUDGE NAME : A.M.AHMADI, M.M.PUNCHHI APPELLANTS :VIJAY PAL SHARMA AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS : R.P. KALRA AND OTHERS ADVOATE : R.K.Jain, Vishal Malik, Rishi Kesh, K.T.S.Tuisi, P.Parameswaran, V.C. Mahajan, Hemant Sharma, T.S.Sharma, Arising out of Writ Petition No. 818 of 1989

ORDER

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the Union of India and the Delhi Administration. We have perused the order of 1 2/03/1990, which it is alleged has not been complied with. That order in terms states "we direct the Delhi Administration to absorb the petitioners in accordance with the prepared scheme for absorbing casual labourers, which scheme has been made effective from 1/10/1988". This directive had not been complied with as yet. In order to give Delhi [ANNEXURE ORDERS] ANNEXURE ORDER 3 (FROM UNPUBLISHED) DATE OF JUDGEMENT : September 13, 1991 APPEAL NO. : 262 of 1990 APPEAL TYPE : Contempt Petition JUDGE NAME : M.M.PUNCHHI, K.RAMASWAMY APPELLANTS :VIJAY PAL SHARMA AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS : R.P. KALRA AND OTHERS ADVOATE : R.K.Jain, RishiKesh, V.Malik, K.T.S.Tuisi, A.Subhashini, T.C. Sharma, Hemani Sharma, P.Parameswaran, V.C.Mahajan ORDER Heard learned counsel in part. Compliance report be submitted to us within two weeks with regard to the treatment meted out to the petitioners, similar to that meted out to 1200 employees who were cov- ered under the scheme. List the matter after two weeks.